1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a restraining apparatus for use in connection with horses. The stabilizer for shoeing a horse has particular utility in connection with securely holding horses for shoeing operations or veterinary procedures.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Close-in work with horses, such as shoeing and veterinary procedures, have long been necessary, yet dangerous, tasks. At any moment during the shoeing process, the horse can kick, bite, or otherwise injure the individual attempting to place the shoe on its hoof. Additionally, if the shoeing is being carried out in a stable, the horse can use its weight to pin the shoer against the stable wall. Beyond the danger of the horse injuring the individual, the process of shoeing can be tedious since the hoof of the horse must be stabilized to effectively complete the task. Therefore, a device which would restrict the horse from injuring the individual attending to it while allowing free access to the horse and providing hoof support would not only increase the safety of the individual working with the horse but also reduce the time and the effort necessary to perform tasks related to the horse's hooves. In addition, the ability for such a device to be portable via a trailer hitch setup would allow the horse owner to safely administer any close attention his horses might need at any desired location, which could be extremely useful if the horses are transported to various events.
The use of specialty horse stabilizers is known in the prior art. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 877,947 to Lewis Pendleton discloses a horseshoeing stall that consists of a supporting frame, rollers supporting adjustable straps for restraining the horse, a breeching strap, a windlass, hopples, and foot rests for the horse's hooves. However, the Pendleton '947 patent fails to provide for the mobility of the device since it has neither a trailer hitch nor wheels for easy movement. In addition, the supporting frame of the Pendleton '947 device is not adjustable according to the girth of the animal. Although the restraining straps can be adjusted to hold the animal, a smaller animal will be harder to reach through the sides of the frame than will be a larger animal. Finally, the foot rests of the Pendleton '947 device are not moveable, forcing the horse handler to correctly position the horse according to the foot rest position instead of positioning the foot rest according to the horse's position.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,807,361 to Norman C. Kaplan discloses an animal elevating means that includes a collapsible open-walled frame stall with a means for independently elevating either the front or rear of the animal and a harness structure for supporting the animal when it is lifted. However, while the Kaplan '361 patent discusses portability as a consideration, it does not provide wheels for easy mobility of the device, nor does it provide a trailer hitch for easy hookup to a motor vehicle. Moreover, the Kaplan '361 device makes no provision for a foot holder upon which the horse's hoof can be stabilized for work to be completed thereupon.
Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 2,718,214 to Robert E. Walker discloses a hoof-trimming stall that includes a platform, a framework extending upward from the platform, a hammock, right and left lateral supports for the hammock, means for simultaneously raising and lowering the supports, and means for positioning and retaining any selected leg of an animal within the stall. However, the Walker '214 patent fails to provide mobility considerations for the stall in question. In addition, the hoof positioners of Walker '214 device are inclined boards with holes into which a looped rope can be inserted for through passage of the animal's hoof and subsequent tightening thereof. Since the rope, or other means for securing the hooves is not a permanent part of the Walker '214 device, it could easily be lost or misplaced, rendering it unavailable at the necessary time. Moreover, the procedure of looping the rope, inserting it through the opening, and securing the animal's hoof could be a tedious procedure, especially if often repeated.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,669,332 to William S. Riley discloses a portable chute for immobilizing an animal that has a front gate, a rear gate, and a stanchion for immobilizing the animal, all of which are operable from a single location at the rear of the chute. The chute is pivotably mounted onto the bed of a vehicle and is rotatable between a horizontal position on the bed of the vehicle and a vertical animal-loading position. However, the Riley '332 patent requires the use of a pickup truck, which could cause added expense for the owner. Furthermore, the use of the bed of the pickup truck by the Riley '332 patent can lead to animal excrement in the truck bed, thereby leaving the owner an undesirable clean up job. Finally, the Riley '332 patent fails to provide a means by which the animal's hooves can be restrained for the further safety of the animal caregiver.
Likewise, U.S. Pat. No. 6,230,662 B1 to Theresa Miale, Gloria Miale, David Giuntoli, and Tom Bailey discloses an animal lift and transport apparatus having a collapsible gurney style structure with wheels, a guide handle, restraining straps, and multiple handholds for carrying purposes. However, use of the Miale, et al. '662 B1 device is limited to immobile animals, providing a minimal amount of restraint for the animal in question; therefore it would not be helpful when attempting to shoe a horse or when working on a healthy animal's hooves. Additionally, use of the Miale, et al. '662 B1 device requires multiple individuals to move the animal onto the support sheet. Finally, no provision is made in the Miale, et al. '662 B1 patent for securing an animal's hooves for individual work required thereon.
Lastly, U.S. Pat. No. 5,842,443 to John James Steinfort discloses an animal lifting apparatus that comprises a harness and support suspended from a frame gambrel that is connected to a weight lifting device. However, the Steinfort '443 device requires the use of some sort of lifting device which might not be available to all users and in all locations. Furthermore, the Steinfort '443 device would be more useful for working on a docile animal since the animal must be positioned in a particular fashion in order to fasten the harness and support correctly; therefore, it would be better suited for working on cows rather than feistier quadrupeds such as horses. Finally, the Steinfort '443 patent makes no provision for individually securing and supporting an animal's hooves for required work in that area.
While the above-described devices fulfill their respective, particular objectives and requirements, the aforementioned patents do not describe a mobile stabilizer for shoeing a horse that securely holds horses for shoeing operations or veterinary procedures and affords the maximum safety for the animal caretaker while providing maximum accessibility to the animal upon which the work is being performed. The Pendleton '947, Kaplan '361, and Walker '214 patents fail to provide for the mobility of the device since they have neither a trailer hitch nor wheels for easy movement. Furthermore, the Riley '332 patent requires the use of a pickup truck and the Steinfort '443 patent requires the use of some sort of lifting device, neither of which might be available to all users and in all locations and either of which could cause added expense for the owner. Additionally, the Kaplan '361, Riley '332, Miale, et al. '662 B1, and Steinfort '443 patent makes no provision for individually securing and supporting an animal's hoof for work that might need to be performed thereon, whereas the foot rests provided by the Pendleton '947 device are not adjustable, forcing the horse handler to correctly position the horse according to foot rest position instead of positioning the foot rest according to the horse's position. The Miale, et al. '662 B1 and Steinfort '443 devices are more useful for work on docile or immobile animals and would not easily lend themselves for use on feisty horses. Moreover, the Miale, et al. '662 B1 device requires multiple individuals to move the immobile animal onto the support sheet. The supporting frame of the Pendleton '947 device is not adjustable according to the girth of the animal; therefore, it would be more difficult to reach a smaller animal through the sides of the frame. Furthermore the procedure of looping a rope through the opening in the hoof restraint could be a tedious chore associated with the Walker '214 device and could result in a missing restraint at an inopportune time. Finally, the use of the bed of the pickup truck by the Riley '332 patent could lead to animal excrement in the truck bed, thereby leaving the owner an undesirable clean up job.
Therefore, a need exists for a new and improved stabilizer for shoeing a horse that can be used for providing increased safety with maximum animal accessibility to an individual performing close work on a horse or other large quadraped. In this regard, the present invention substantially fulfills this need. In this respect, the stabilizer for shoeing a horse according to the present invention substantially departs from the conventional concepts and designs of the prior art, and in doing so provides an apparatus primarily developed for the purpose of providing a mobile device that is used for securely holding horses for shoeing operations or veterinary procedures.